There was a very interesting article in the March issue of the New Yorker that discussed in depth the various American perspectives on regime change in Iran. Personally, I think any sort of confrontation will be a last resort - we're nowhere near that right now, despite Ahmadinejad's best efforts.

I do find it strange that he represents quintessentially, everything that the US administration would want in the leadership of a "rogue" state. He's handing it to them on a silver platter. "Come and get me"

April 29, 2006— In a new report, the United Nations concludes Iran is moving ahead with its nuclear program, continuing to make fuel that could be used in nuclear bombs and continuing to defy the United Nations.

During the last 30 days, Iran has conducted three separate missile tests, promised Sudan it will share its nuclear technology and announced an expansion of its uranium enrichment program.

"They really are engaged in their own Manhattan project," said Marc Gerecht of the American Enterprise Institute. "And they are deadly serious about this. And it would be foolish to underestimate their capacity and their will here." The stage is set for a showdown at the U.N. Security Council showdown over a resolution to punish Iran.

Before an enthusiastic crowd in northwestern Iran Friday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declared, "The Iranian nation won't give a damn about such useless resolutions."......

There will be no attack on Iran. Iran is not even close to developing nuclear weapons; all the propaganda in the U.S. media is simply the result of the news media looking for, and finding, work to do.

The way I see it, this whole thing is mainly about keeping oil prices high. Keeping oil prices high will help the mullah regime remain in power by allowing them to take care of their people and purchase loyalty, not necessarily in that order. Threatening the world with ambitions to obtain nuclear energy, which "may lead to the development of nuclear weapons," will keep the markets "threatened," which will - along with the chaos in Iraq, a possible attack on the Saudis' oil infrastructure, as well as the forces of supply and demand - help keep prices high.

i don't see how's that beneficial. If they're not going to attack iran, it's less likely they'll attack the saudi oil infrastructure. since it'll deprive them of even more oil as the demands are already high.And how's it beneficial to keep the markets threatened?in either case, i don't see this as an overexaggeration by the media. In fact they're being a little modest. Remember before the war in iraq. Saddam was allowing inspectors. Iran has been more bold but the media coverage is not as intense as you'd expect.

i don't see how's that beneficial. If they're not going to attack iran, it's less likely they'll attack the saudi oil infrastructure. since it'll deprive them of even more oil as the demands are already high.

Sorry, but I wasn't clear in my original post: the threat to the Saudi oil is not from the U.S., but from terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda. This threat is very real.

Keeping the markets threatened benefits oil-rich dissenters such as Iran and Venezuela, two countries who happen to be quite friendly with each other these days. Additionally, the high prices benefit the oil companies, which is under intense media scrutiny currently.

in either case, i don't see this as an overexaggeration by the media. In fact they're being a little modest. Remember before the war in iraq. Saddam was allowing inspectors. Iran has been more bold but the media coverage is not as intense as you'd expect.

The overexaggeration is that there is no threat and there won't be one for a very long time. Iran is not even close to developing nuclear weapons. If one truly believed the media reports, it would seem that Iran would be able to develope nukes as soon as they finish enriching uranium, which is bogus.

So what if Saddam was allowing inspectors? The plan to attack Iraq was made years in advance and it was well known throughtout the world that it was probably going to happen. Iraq and Iran are two different situations and cannot be compared based on the perceived threats they pose/posed and the amount of media coverage each one received/receives.

"Iran's economy is marked by a bloated, inefficient state sector, over reliance on the oil sector, and statist policies that create major distortions throughout. Most economic activity is controlled by the state. Private sector activity is typically small-scale - workshops, farming, and services. President Mahmud AHMADI-NEJAD has continued to follow the market reform plans of former President RAFSANJANI, with limited progress. Relatively high oil prices in recent years have enabled Iran to amass some $40 billion in foreign exchange reserves, but have not eased economic hardships such as high unemployment and inflation." Source: http://www.cia.gov/c...ok/geos/ir.html (it's under "economy overview," about half-way down the page)

The threat can be there in a few years (5 or maybe more). which is reason enough to overexaggerate, but there seems that there's no overexaggeration yet.

of course everyone knew that iraq would be attacked. it's been known since the gulf war. It was just a matter of time. The way i see it, an attack on iran (if it ever occurs) will be limited to targetted air strikes (maybe rockets) and that's about it. There will be no large scale military involvement.

btw. My bad. i misread your post. I thought you somehow concluded that it benefited certain ppl in oil industry.

The threat can be there in a few years (5 or maybe more). which is reason enough to overexaggerate, but there seems that there's no overexaggeration yet.

of course everyone knew that iraq would be attacked. it's been known since the gulf war. It was just a matter of time. The way i see it, an attack on iran (if it ever occurs) will be limited to targetted air strikes (maybe rockets) and that's about it. There will be no large scale military involvement.

btw. My bad. i misread your post. I thought you somehow concluded that it benefited certain ppl in oil industry.

hytga,

I don't think they would even pull that unless they are complete morons. Iran isn't going to take any attack. Iran has an ability to hit back on many targets. Minor strike or major strike, they still risk a major regional war.

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ UN former nuclear weapons inspector Scott Ritter stated the US Administration considers strikes upon Iran from the territory of Azerbaijan. In his words, after acquainting oneself with military maps, it will be clear that deploying troops in Azerbaijan is extremely important for the US. «US command is extremely interested in deployment of forces in that South Caucasian country. Why is this important? It is Iran's neighbor. The shortest route to Teheran lies below the Caspian, where the army plans an offensive to,» the expert noted.

Ritter supposes that the military believe they can fulfill this mission and they plan implementing it. «They got political instructions from the commander-in-chief to fulfill that task. No one should doubt US President, his closest circles and the military prepare to war with Iran,» Scott Ritter emphasized, reports American Patriot.

Mey be the best news in 4 millennia.Some people may think they know history, that garbage they learned in Sunday School, yet have not the intellect to read real history when the Persian Empire spanned all the way from the Caspian to the Balkan Sea.Can they do it again? Attack Tehran from Baku"Good!!A sure way to wipe Baku off the map once and for all!!

WASHINGTON - In a major policy shift, the United States said Wednesday it is prepared to join other nations in holding direct talks withIran on its nuclear program if Iran first agrees to stop disputed nuclear activities that the West fears could lead to a bomb.ADVERTISEMENT

"To underscore our commitment to a diplomatic solution and to enhance prospects for success, as soon as Iran fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities, the United States will come to the table," Secretary of StateCondoleezza Rice said at the State Department.

Asked at a news conference whether the United States would be willing to re-establish diplomatic relations with Iran, Rice ruled out a "grand bargain" and cited major disagreements between the two countries on many issues. However, Rice said a negotiated solution to the nuclear dispute could "begin to change the relationship."

"We urge Iran to make this choice for peace, to abandon its ambition for nuclear weapons," she said. At the same time, Rice acknowledged Iran has a right to civil nuclear energy.

The Swiss ambassador to the United States was called to the State Department earlier Wednesday to receive a copy of Rice's remarks for transmission to Iran, U.S. officials said. The United States has had no diplomatic ties with Iran and few contacts at all with its government since Islamic radicals took over the U.S. Embassy in 1979 and held diplomats there for more than a year.

In Brussels,European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana welcomed Rice's remarks. "Direct U.S. participation would be the strongest and most positive signal of our common wish to reach an agreement with Iran," Solana added.

British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said European nations will offer Tehran "a serious and substantial" package to cooperate. "We are all striving to reach a diplomatic solution. The European side's goal is to present a serious and substantial offer of cooperation, which demonstrates to Iran the benefits that would flow from compliance," Beckett said, "rather than the further isolation which would result from their failure to do so."

The Bush administration has been deeply suspicious of Iran's intentions and the prime mover for toughUnited Nations action against the clerical regime. Until now, the United States has refused repeated calls from European nations, other diplomats and former secretaries of state to join the European talks.

For its part, Iran has for months refused to do what the U.S. is now demanding as a first step to talks — suspend its enrichment of uranium, which Tehran claims is for peaceful purposes. Iran did voluntarily suspend those activities while talks were active with the Europeans last year, but resumed and stepped up those activities this spring.

Suspending uranium enrichment and related activities in order to talk with the United States would not preclude Iran from later insisting that it be allowed to continue those activities. At that point, the United States and its allies would be expected to move for toughU.N. Security Council action, possibly including economic or other sanctions.

Rice will meet with foreign ministers from the other permanent Security Council members on Thursday in Vienna to finalize a package of incentives and threats to be presented to Tehran.

"We hope that in the coming days the Iranian government will thoroughly consider this proposal," Rice said.

European diplomats told The Associated Press that the package and the U.S. announcement of a willingness to talk were conditioned on pledges from Russia and China to eventually support tough actions such as sanctions if Iran continued to defy a U.N. call to stop its disputed activities.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said the United States will not enter one-on-one talks with Iran. The European talks included Britain, France and Germany.

"There are going to be some changes, but the overall position, which is that Iran needs to take the first step, it needs to suspend enrichment and reprocessing activities, that's still there," Snow said. "That's still the foundation stone for U.S. diplomatic policy on this."

Rice also detailed other U.S. complaints with Iran's behavior, including what the U.S. says is Iran's support for terrorism in Lebanon and Palestinian territories. "Nobody is confused about the nature of this regime," she said.

In recent weeks, Bush administration officials repeatedly have insisted there were no plans for one-on-one talks with Iran over its nuclear program, while holding open the possibility of such meetings onIraq, where Tehran has substantial influence with that country's Shiites.

Any U.S. decision to talk directly with Tehran, even as part of a multilateral set of negotiations, reflects pressure by its allies and partners. Government officials from Germany have publicly urged the Americans to engage Tehran directly, and Moscow and Beijing also are believed to support such a move.

News of the latest U.S. position comes on the eve of a six-nation meeting focusing on ending months of disagreement between Washington and the Kremlin on how to persuade Tehran to stop uranium enrichment. A round of telephone diplomacy Tuesday betweenPresident Bush and the leaders of Russia, France and Germany also focused on the nuclear standoff.

___

Associated Press writers George Jahn in Vienna and Barry Schweid and Nedra Pickler in Washington contributed to this report.

I dont think this laitest stunt by US is going to produce any positive results, this is just a window dressing for neo-cons,

as soon as admistration annaonced they will talk directly with Iran propaganda machine is all over the media calling the president of Iran the antichrist, antisemite and anti Israel

"you control information and media you control the world"

with big letters on CNN "IS IRAN NEXT" fallowed by portraying Iranians as saveges, 1979 hostage crisis, why reniue hostage thing? for one perpose only, to brainwash the public again, just like Iraq has started with WMDGod help the world and especialy USA.....